• rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This!!!

      This!!

      People, stop celebrating “freeing” software of maintainers that want to prevent being exploited.

      • qaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        What about a license that would require every company with a market cap above 25 B that (indirectly) uses the software to contribute X amount (like $1000 a year) of revenue back?

        • paraphrand@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I think if that caught on then companies would call it undue burden to sift through all the dependencies they use to make such small payments.

          It is a difficult problem. But on the face of it your suggestion seems very reasonable.

          • qaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            GitHub has a tool built-in to show all dependencies, it’s not that hard to write a little script to check the LICENSE files in the repositories. I’m sure one of the biggest companies in the world has the ability to do that.

          • Lmaydev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            If dual licensing was standard the software that uses things like xz would pay down the line so everything was funded.

        • Astongt615@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          I mean this is already a thing to certain degrees right? Virtualization platforms I use both are free for personal use, but not business use, or at least certain feature package use isn’t permitted. What’s the difference? Putting the software under a different license/eula?

          • qaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes, but the proposed license would also be free for businesses except for the largest in the world.

            • Astongt615@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Why limit it? If you’re actively making money, or you are a licensed business attempting to do so, people actively helping you build business deserve to be compensated. If a developer just happened to live in your area and said “I could make your business better by making this thing for you,” would they be worth hiring? What’s the saying, socialize the resources, privatize the profits? Size << Intent